As I see it:Picky, picky! Whatever happened to free speech?

At first I Just had to laugh! I touched somebody’s nerve in my July 23 column.

By Harriett Gustason

Journal Standard

By Harriett Gustason

Posted Jul. 6, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jul 6, 2013 at 5:12 AM

By Harriett Gustason

Posted Jul. 6, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jul 6, 2013 at 5:12 AM

At first I Just had to laugh! I touched somebody’s nerve in my July 23 column.

I received an unsigned letter from someone calling my attention to the fact that I called folks who had already turned on their air conditioners “chickens.” I was just trying to be facetious, I guess.

Well, I’m sorry if that was offensive to this person or anyone else. I wasn’t meaning to label them as sissies, weak sisters or winged foul for that matter, and if my use of the word chicken was offensive, I apologize.

But I have to think this reader, though not hateful, was perhaps a bit reactionary. I’ll admit it was a bit uncharacteristic of my style, so I won’t call you names anymore. After all, you have a right to turn on your air conditioner whenever you want and not fear public condemnation.

I still haven’t turned on mine. As a matter of fact, I was tempted this very morning to go around and shut all my windows and turn on — oh my gosh — the heat. So maybe I’m one of those clucking hens myself, at the other extreme.

I didn’t do it though. I put on more clothing. I’ve just toughed it out, lest I be labeled something very derogatory like ... well, we won’t go there.

I suppose for a child to be called anything like what I used could be humiliating and perhaps goad them into doing things they wouldn’t ordinarily feel like doing, just to keep from being tagged with that label.

I do have to say, though, the writer of the note was a bit cowardly not signing his or her name. The broad journalistic rule is to pitch those letters that are unsigned.

However, I felt like the fact that a person would latch on to something like that was in some way significant. There are two sides to this issue but, I feel, there is a need for a line to be drawn.

Two sides to the story

We are exposed to so much vulgarity through the media that it is utterly sickening, and we latch on to such innocent words. Do you see something wrong with that picture?

Racial remarks, any kind of physical or mental impairment, social status beyond which a child or anyone for that matter, can control, nationality or religious beliefs are out of bounds for ridicule in my book. That includes anything that is demeaning to the person being victimized. That’s wrong. But ...

It is my belief that society has become so picky in these times, so sensitized, so defensive, that this word usage is being carried way too far. It is almost to the silly point, ridiculous. Come on. The answer is common courtesy, respect, recognizing humans for their humanity.

Page 2 of 3 -
Life has become so analytical. You can’t say this. You can’t say that. Well, it’s true. Certain verbiage is unacceptable. Every person has a right to dignity. For me, that is a given.

On most of the television networks, the savagery, the sickening violence and gore, the vulgarity, is unhinged, unharnessed, unrestrained. I have seen beheaded corpses in primetime network shows. I see people being beaten to a pulp, gun-whipped, shot, dismembered, you name it.

There are graphic scenes, explicit sex, inhuman acts, in almost every network crime show these days. And we quibble because two people born with non-traditional sexual drives want to be legally and legitimately united. Oh my, aren’t we holy, while we sit and feed on some pretty unsavory stuff.

What if “they” of the same sex do want to get married, to have legal lifetime mates? How is it going to hurt those who are in heterosexual marriages? To me the whole thing is just a tempest in a teapot.

Those unfortunates live together anyway. If they want to be able to own a home together, invest together, hold insurance together, how is that going to harm those who already have all those legal benefits? To me it all boils down to a matter of semantics. Don’t call it “marriage,” call it a legal union. That might settle it for some people.

Watch what you say

When we are so guarded in so many issues of just labels, why do we not feel the same need for the same respect to be shown in the media. The things we accept from our airways go way below the line of decency in my opinion, yet we are so watchful in so many things of little consequence.

Our language has to be so guarded. And it all goes back to one thing, and that is that people are so critical, perhaps due to the fact they have meaningless lives and the best recreation is judging others.

The problem is not the language, it is what prompts the language, the inconsideration of others’ feelings and welfare. Language is only the audible part. The real trouble is in the minds and attitudes of the people, the general disregard of others’ humanity.

You don’t use hurtful words to others if you care about them and their dignity. Dignity is what every person deserves, from the lowliest mortal to the loftiest.

We may not like what another person appears to be, but we owe them their dignity, It is never right to deprive a person of that. I have never – I mean never – believed in making fun of anyone. There is a level beyond which one should not go. Oh we can kid somebody, poke a little harmless fun at them, but when you really demean someone for things they can’t help, or damage their dignity, that is going too far.

Page 3 of 3 -
But come on. Are we to monitor every word we say? Should we have to walk on eggs so we don’t hurt someone’s feelings?

Truly, common courtesy, respect, using words we wouldn’t mind being called ourselves, looking people in the eyes, recognizing their humanity, allowing them their dignity, those should be our guidelines. That’s how I see it.

Harriett Gustason is a writer for The Journal-Standard. She can be reached at 815-235-3855 or hg3855@comcast.net.